Oregon Appellate Court--November 15, 2018
by: Rankin Johnson • November 18, 2018 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Police conduct constituting a stop TRESPASSING - Adequacy of exclusion notice APPEAL AND REVIEW - Harmlessness </summary> '''Summarized...") |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Police officer stopped defendant by accusing her of possessing methamphetamine and telling her that she could easily prove him wrong by letting him look in her purse. Reversed and remanded. | Police officer stopped defendant by accusing her of possessing methamphetamine and telling her that she could easily prove him wrong by letting him look in her purse. Reversed and remanded. | ||
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital | + | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll5/id/20545/rec/3 State v. Nelson] 294 Or App 793 (November 15, 2018) (Egan) (Coos County, Stone) |
'''TRESPASSING - Adequacy of exclusion notice''' | '''TRESPASSING - Adequacy of exclusion notice''' | ||
| − | + | Defendant’s notice of trespass issued by the University of Oregon was valid, notwithstanding that the notice did not explain how to obtain judicial review, and therefore subsequent trespassing conviction was valid. Affirmed. | |
| − | + | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll5/id/20518/rec/3 City of Eugene v. Gannon] 294 Or App 819 (November 15, 2018) (Ortega) (Lane County, Conover) | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital | + | |
'''APPEAL AND REVIEW - Harmlessness''' | '''APPEAL AND REVIEW - Harmlessness''' | ||
| − | + | Where victim testified about sexual abuse and about earlier statements regarding that abuse, admission of hearsay statements about those prior statements was harmless. Affirmed. | |
| + | |||
| + | Defendant was charged with unlawful sexual penetration and sexual abuse. He argued that double-level hearsay was not admissible under the acts-of-abuse hearsay exception. The court held that any error was harmless, and therefore did not reach the merits. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s ruling that, notwithstanding mild dementia, defendant was competent. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In dissent, J. Shorr argued that a hearsay statement that one of the victims said that defendant had “raped” her was inadmissible other-bad-act evidence, because he was accused of other sexual offenses but not rape. The dissent would have held that the error in admitting the evidence was harmful. | ||
| − | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital | + | [https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll5/id/20553/rec/3 State v. Simon] 294 Or App 840 (November 15, 2018) (Linder, Shorr dissenting) (Washington County, Letourneau) |
{{wl-publish: 2018-11-18 21:00:55 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | {{wl-publish: 2018-11-18 21:00:55 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:01, December 29, 2018
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Police conduct constituting a stop
Police officer stopped defendant by accusing her of possessing methamphetamine and telling her that she could easily prove him wrong by letting him look in her purse. Reversed and remanded.
State v. Nelson 294 Or App 793 (November 15, 2018) (Egan) (Coos County, Stone)
TRESPASSING - Adequacy of exclusion notice
Defendant’s notice of trespass issued by the University of Oregon was valid, notwithstanding that the notice did not explain how to obtain judicial review, and therefore subsequent trespassing conviction was valid. Affirmed.
City of Eugene v. Gannon 294 Or App 819 (November 15, 2018) (Ortega) (Lane County, Conover)
APPEAL AND REVIEW - Harmlessness
Where victim testified about sexual abuse and about earlier statements regarding that abuse, admission of hearsay statements about those prior statements was harmless. Affirmed.
Defendant was charged with unlawful sexual penetration and sexual abuse. He argued that double-level hearsay was not admissible under the acts-of-abuse hearsay exception. The court held that any error was harmless, and therefore did not reach the merits.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s ruling that, notwithstanding mild dementia, defendant was competent.
In dissent, J. Shorr argued that a hearsay statement that one of the victims said that defendant had “raped” her was inadmissible other-bad-act evidence, because he was accused of other sexual offenses but not rape. The dissent would have held that the error in admitting the evidence was harmful.
State v. Simon 294 Or App 840 (November 15, 2018) (Linder, Shorr dissenting) (Washington County, Letourneau)
